Feedback Focussing on Evaluation

Model Answer (Exemplar)

Evaluation Score: 12/12

Word Count: ~360 words (320 - 360 words are expected)

I agree more with Professor David Chen because, while the UK has flexible tools like delegated legislation, the primary legislative process is far too slow to deal with modern technological threats. Dr. Sarah Jenkins argues that our uncodified constitution allows Parliament to "pass new laws relatively quickly" and use delegated legislation for technical updates. This is a fair point in emergencies, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when the Coronavirus Act was passed in mere days. However, Professor David Chen is more convincing when he states the system is "dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped" for fast-moving tech like AI. He is correct that Parliament lacks "specialized technical expertise," which means by the time a bill like the Online Safety Act passes through both Houses, it is often already outdated. Relying on unelected judges to fill these gaps through common law is, as Chen correctly notes, "undemocratic". Overall, Chen's argument is stronger. While Jenkins focuses on the theoretical flexibility of the system, Chen addresses the reality: the traditional, reactive nature of Parliament leaves society vulnerable to rapid cultural and scientific changes before the law can catch up.

📄 Source Passages

These are the two passages you were given in the exam. The key arguments are highlighted so you can see the full range of points available to you. After the passages, there is a list of own knowledge ideas that could have strengthened your answer.

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

Our law-making system is remarkably effective at adapting to the rapid pace of scientific, cultural, and social change. The flexibility of our uncodified constitution means Parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arise, without navigating the complex amendment processes required in countries with rigid constitutions. Furthermore, the system is supported by dedicated bodies like the Law Commission, which constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant and proposes necessary reforms to reflect modern societal values.

In addition to statutory law, our tradition of common law allows judges to interpret and apply existing legal principles to novel situations, providing an immediate response to emerging cultural and technological challenges. The use of delegated legislation also empowers government ministers to swiftly update regulations in technical areas, such as medical advancements or environmental standards, without waiting for full parliamentary time. Overall, this combination of parliamentary sovereignty, expert consultation, and judicial flexibility ensures our legal framework remains dynamic, relevant, and entirely fit for the modern age.

Professor David Chen says NO

Our current system of law-making is dangerously slow and entirely ill-equipped to keep pace with modern scientific and social advancements. The legislative process is archaic, often requiring months or even years for a bill to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. By the time legislation regarding fast-moving technologies—such as artificial intelligence or social media regulation—finally receives Royal Assent, it is frequently already outdated.

Furthermore, Parliament is inherently reactive rather than proactive; lawmakers typically only address issues after significant public harm has occurred. There is also a severe lack of specialized technical expertise among politicians, leading to poorly drafted laws that fail to comprehend the nuances of complex scientific developments. While common law can adapt, relying on unelected judges to update the law through precedent is piecemeal and undemocratic. Ultimately, our cumbersome, traditional procedures leave society vulnerable to emerging threats and fail to adequately reflect rapidly shifting cultural norms and technological realities.

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

These are things from outside the source that would have pushed your answer into the top marks. You didn't need to know all of these — even one or two would have made a difference.

The Online Safety Act: An excellent example supporting Chen. It took years of debate to pass, and by the time it was enacted, new social media platforms and AI technologies had already outpaced parts of the original draft.
The Coronavirus Act 2020: A prime example supporting Jenkins. Emergency legislation was drafted and passed through both Houses in a matter of days to respond to an unprecedented, rapidly evolving health crisis.
No Fault Divorce (Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020): Shows the Law Commission working well (supporting Jenkins). They recommended changing the archaic divorce laws to reflect modern cultural realities, and Parliament eventually acted on it.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: A classic example of "reactive" legislation (supporting Chen). It was rushed through Parliament quickly after public outcry over dog attacks, but was poorly drafted and required numerous amendments over the years.
Surrogacy and Fertility Laws: Many legal scholars argue that our laws on IVF, surrogacy, and genetic engineering are severely outdated, supporting Chen's claim that Parliament struggles to keep up with scientific and medical advancements.
Common Law Adaptability: The common law tort of negligence, established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), has been adapted by judges over decades to apply to modern issues like internet liability and psychiatric harm (supporting Jenkins).

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

1. Lack of Direct Comparison: The most common weakness was describing the two sources separately rather than integrating them into a debate. Students need to use comparative language to weigh the arguments against each other.
👉 Model: While Professor Chen rightly highlights the slow pace of parliamentary law-making, Dr. Jenkins' argument that this allows for greater scrutiny and reflection of social values is ultimately more convincing.
2. Undeveloped Explanations: Many students stated a writer's point but failed to explain *why* it was a strong or weak argument. Top-level answers must explain the real-world impact or significance of the points being made.
👉 Model: Professor Chen's concern about the slow legislative process is significant because this delay can leave society vulnerable, for example, by failing to regulate emerging technologies like AI which develop much faster than Parliament can legislate.
3. Weak Argument Structure: Essays often lacked a clear, sustained line of reasoning. Many conclusions simply asserted a judgement without summarising the 'why' from the main body, or introduced new points.
👉 Model: Therefore, having established that the flexibility praised by Jenkins outweighs the slowness criticised by Chen, it is clear that our law-making system, while not perfect, is adequately equipped to handle societal change.
4. Imprecise Language: A significant number of responses used informal language (e.g., "it's a good thing") or failed to use subject-specific terminology, which weakened the academic tone and precision of the argument.
👉 Model: Dr. Jenkins's perspective is strengthened by the role of the Law Commission, which provides expert, non-political recommendations to ensure the legislative process is informed and modern, rather than just being an 'outdated' system.

Teacher Next Steps

1. Argument Tennis: Put students in pairs. One 'serves' a point from Professor Chen. The other must 'return' it with a counter-argument from Dr. Jenkins, starting with a comparative phrase like "In contrast..." or "While that's a valid point...". This drills the use of comparative language to create a debate.
2. The 'So What?' Drill: Display a simple point from a source, e.g., "Dr. Jenkins says laws must reflect social values." Ask a student to explain it. After their explanation, ask "So what? Why does that matter?". Keep asking until they link the point to a specific real-world impact (e.g., "...so that laws like the Equality Act 2010 maintain public support and legitimacy.").
3. Conclusion Deconstruction: Give students a model conclusion. In pairs, they must highlight its three parts: 1) The acknowledgement of the counter-argument (e.g., "Although Professor Chen raises a valid concern..."), 2) The final judgement ("...Dr. Jenkins' view is more persuasive..."), and 3) The summary justification ("...because ensuring laws are well-scrutinised is more important than speed.").
4. Vocabulary Upgrade: Project a simple, informal sentence on the board (e.g., "It takes a long time to make laws."). In pairs, students have 2 minutes to 'upgrade' it using a provided bank of key terms (e.g., legislative process, scrutiny, parliamentary stages, inefficient). Share the best examples to model precise, academic language.

Candidate 0283

Word Count: ~246 words

Evaluation Score: 8/12

Firstly I agree with Professor David Chen who disagrees that our system of law making keeps up with scientific cultural and social changes in the world, I mostly agree with this writer because they suggest that "it takes often months or even years for a bill to pass through both houses", referring to our current system of law making I agree with this view because by the time issues regarding social changes in the world due to the quick pace of technologies by the time royal assent recieves it, it would already have become out of date meaning that our system of law making doesn't always keep up due to how long it takes to process. However I disagree with the argument given by Dr Sera Jenkins as she suggests that "law making system is remarkably effective at the rapid pace of scientific cultural and social change" and I disagree with this because it often takes laws months yet even years to process bills, this means they would need time to negotiate on weather or not the bill is worthy of being approved, this is passed between the house of commons and house of lords making decisions making longer to make. They also suggested that the system is supported by dedicated bodies like law commission and I disagree with this because law makers typically only address issues after significant public harm. meaning that there is a lack of dedication being put in as it could have been addressed prior before any harm is done which then shows dedication however they don't. Overall I mostly agree with writer David Chen because their points have been made clear and has been justified as law making does take time and isn't just "rapidly" made, but rather they take time rather making our system of law making process slower and less effective for our society.

Quality of EvaluationClear. Your response provides a definite judgment and supports it by explaining arguments from both writers. You successfully identify the core disagreement about the speed of law-making and use this to structure your answer. You also attempt to directly challenge Dr. Jenkins' points, particularly regarding the Law Commission, which shows good evaluative thinking. However, to reach the top level, your evaluation needs to be more 'sustained' by developing your counter-arguments with more specific detail or examples, rather than repeating the same core point about the time it takes.

Sustained Evaluation: "I disagree with this because bodies like the Law Commission are often reactive, not proactive. For example, laws around social media harms or 'deepfake' technology were only seriously considered after widespread public concern and evidence of harm, suggesting the system doesn't anticipate change but merely responds to it, often too late."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You consistently state and maintain your viewpoint throughout the answer, making your position clear from the start and in your conclusion.
Direct Rebuttal: You effectively challenge Dr. Jenkins' arguments directly, especially her point about the Law Commission. This shows you are evaluating, not just describing.
Use of Evidence: You select relevant quotes from both writers to support your points, showing you have understood the sources well.

Targets

Develop Your Points: Instead of repeating that the process is slow, explain the *impact* of this slowness with a specific (real or hypothetical) example. For instance, how did slow law-making affect a particular social issue like online safety?
Sustained Argument: To make your argument more 'sustained', link your points together more smoothly. After challenging Jenkins, explicitly state how this reinforces Chen's argument, creating a stronger line of reasoning.
Precise Terminology: Use more precise language. For example, instead of "process bills," you could use terms like 'legislative process,' 'scrutiny,' or 'parliamentary stages.' Also, check spelling and grammar (e.g., 'receives', 'whether').
Integrated Structure: For top marks, consider a more integrated structure. Instead of one paragraph for Chen and one for Jenkins, you could structure by theme (e.g., a paragraph on 'Speed') and compare the writers within that paragraph.

Candidate 4383

Word Count: ~52 words

Evaluation Score: 2/12

I mostly agree with Writer Professor David Chen. They suggest that law making can adapt really quickly to society's expectations. I agree with this view because we have an "uncodified constitution" meaning that The parliament can pass new laws quickly in issues that are urgent. They also suggest that ~~that the flexibility of law~~ law making is

Quality of EvaluationLimited. This response makes a good start by stating a clear judgement and using some own knowledge. However, it is too brief and only considers one side of the argument, which places it in Level 1. To improve, you must explain the arguments from Dr. Jenkins and then directly compare them to Professor Chen's views to justify your judgement in a more developed way.

Developing an argument: For example, you could write: "While Professor Chen argues that our uncodified constitution allows Parliament to pass laws quickly, Dr. Jenkins might counter that this speed can lead to poorly thought-out legislation, suggesting that a more rigid system has benefits for long-term stability."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a clear and direct statement of which writer you agree with ("I mostly agree with..."). This is a great way to structure an evaluation.
Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively used your own knowledge about the UK's "uncodified constitution" to explain and support Professor Chen's argument. This shows good subject understanding.

Targets

Engage with Both Sources: Your answer only discusses Professor Chen. To reach Level 2 and above, you *must* also explain the key arguments from Dr. Jenkins' perspective.
Develop Direct Comparisons: Don't just list the writers' points. Directly compare them. Use phrases like "In contrast," "While Jenkins argues X, Chen suggests Y," or "Chen's view is more convincing because..."
Sustain Your Argument: The response is incomplete and very brief. Aim to write at least two or three developed paragraphs to build a sustained line of reasoning that fully answers the question.
Complete Your Sentences: The final sentence is unfinished. Always proofread your work to ensure your points are communicated clearly and completely.

Candidate 4388

Word Count: ~138 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I personally agree with writer A. They suggest that due to the flexabillity of our uncodified constitution that our law-making system is effective to mending to change. I Agree with this view because law making system in the UK is very effective due to Allowing Judges to change common law. They also mention legislation and how it keeps law-making in check. Although writer B says the current law making system is slow to keep up with scientific & social change, I disagree because they mention that law is only changed after significant harm has been done and that common law changed by unelected judges isn't democratic. Overall I agree with writer A more because of the points listed above and disagree with writer B.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You make a clear judgement and identify relevant points from both Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen, which is a solid foundation for a Level 2 answer. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. You tend to list the writers' points rather than explaining them in detail or making them 'debate' each other. To improve, focus on explaining *why* an argument is strong or weak and directly comparing the two viewpoints to build a more convincing line of reasoning.

Sustained Evaluation: To improve your evaluation, directly challenge Writer B's points. For example: "While Professor Chen raises a valid concern that common law changes can be slow, I believe Dr. Jenkins' argument about flexibility is more convincing. This is because the ability of judges to adapt the law allows for a quicker response to specific cases than waiting for Parliament to pass new legislation, which can be a much slower process."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin your answer by stating exactly which writer you agree with. This provides immediate focus and directly answers the question.
Source Identification: You have successfully pulled out key arguments from both Writer A (flexibility of the constitution, common law) and Writer B (slowness, undemocratic nature of common law).

Targets

Develop Explanations (The 'Why' Factor): Move beyond stating what the writers say to explaining *why* that point is strong or weak. After quoting a view, ask yourself 'why is this convincing?' and write down the answer.
Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing the writers in separate paragraphs, create a "debate" between them. Use phrases like "While Professor Chen argues X, Dr. Jenkins' point about Y is more persuasive because...". This is the key to sustained, Level 3 evaluation.
Structure Your Disagreement: When you disagree with a writer, you must explain *why* their argument is weak, not just list their points. For example, you could say "Professor Chen's fear of unelected judges is overstated because..." and then provide your reasoning.
Proofread for Clarity: Small errors like "flexabillity" and "mending to change" can disrupt the flow of your argument. A quick read-through can help you spot these and make your writing clearer and more professional.

Candidate 4423

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I agree more with writer Dr Sarah Jenkins because she says that the law making system does keep up with scientific, cultural, and social change because of the unwritten & flexible constitution that the UK has a free and democratic parliament. For example, the unwritten constitution of the UK allows laws to be changed easily as no rules and expectations about the justice system exist, allowing easy adoption for change in religion, culture etc. Also, this system is supported by dedicated bodies like the law commission that constantly amend laws to help them remain relevant. However, one may agree with David Chan because he describes the law-making process as democraticly-slow and entirely ill-equipped.

Quality of EvaluationGood. You have made a clear judgment and supported it with relevant evidence from Dr. Jenkins's argument. You successfully identified key points about the UK's flexible constitution and the role of the Law Commission. However, your evaluation is one-sided. To improve, you need to engage more deeply with Professor Chen's counter-arguments and use them to directly challenge or test the claims made by Dr. Jenkins. This will create a more balanced and sustained line of reasoning.

Comparative Evaluation: "However, while Jenkins's point about flexibility is valid, Professor Chen's argument that the process is 'democratically-slow' is more convincing because significant changes, like those concerning social media regulation, often take years of debate, by which time the technology has already moved on. This suggests the flexibility Jenkins praises may not be enough to overcome the inherent slowness of the parliamentary process."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You start with a clear and direct judgement, stating which writer you find more convincing. This immediately focuses your argument.
Evidence Selection (Writer A): You have effectively selected and explained key evidence from Dr. Jenkins's argument, such as the 'flexible constitution' and the 'Law Commission'.

Targets

Develop Both Sides: Your explanation of Professor Chen's argument is very brief. To achieve a balanced evaluation, explain his points in as much detail as you explained Dr. Jenkins's.
Use Comparative Language: Incorporate comparative words and phrases (e.g., 'however', 'in contrast', 'more convincingly', 'less persuasive because...') to directly weigh the two arguments against each other.
Create a 'Dialogue': Make the writers 'argue' with each other. For example, how would Professor Chen respond to Dr. Jenkins's point about the Law Commission? Would he say its recommendations are ignored or take too long to implement?
Precision of Language: Be careful with your phrasing. Stating that 'no rules and expectations... exist' is an oversimplification. A more accurate phrase would be that the UK has an 'uncodified' or 'unwritten' constitution.

Candidate 4443

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I agree with writer 2 more than writer 1. This is because they suggest that law-making is dangerously slow and is forced to keep pace with the modern and social advancements like scientific ones. They also suggest that even though there are special types of law-making there is a severe lack of specialized technical experts amongst politicians which can lead to poorly drafted laws that fail to follow complex scientific developments. However, writer 1 states that the law-making system is supported by dedicated bodies such as the law commission who constantly reviews legislation to ensure it remains relevant to modern societal norms. They also state that new laws are passed pretty quick if an urgent issue arises. This means those severe issues can be dealt with relatively quick with little to no repurcussions. In conclusion, I agree with writer 2 more because poorly drafted laws may reflect their reputation and future decision making.

Quality of EvaluationGood. This is a solid Level 2 response. You have a clear structure, starting with a judgement and then explaining relevant arguments from both Professor Chen (Writer 2) and Dr. Jenkins (Writer 1). To reach the highest marks, you need to move from explaining the arguments separately to directly comparing them. Ask yourself *why* one argument is more convincing than the other and explain that link. For example, does Professor Chen's point about a lack of expertise undermine Dr. Jenkins's point about the Law Commission?

Developing your comparison: "While Dr. Jenkins rightly points out that bodies like the Law Commission exist, Professor Chen's argument that politicians lack specialist knowledge is more persuasive because it suggests these bodies are fighting a losing battle against the sheer pace of modern scientific change."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You begin with a confident and clear statement of which writer you agree with, which immediately focuses your answer.
Good Summaries: You accurately identify and explain the main arguments from both Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen, showing you have fully understood the source material.
Logical Structure: Your answer is well-organised, dealing with one writer and then the other before concluding. This makes your initial points easy to follow.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of just stating what each writer says, directly compare their points. For example, "Dr. Jenkins's point about X is less convincing than Professor Chen's point about Y because...". This is the key to a Level 3 'sustained evaluation'.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your conclusion introduced a new idea about 'reputation'. A stronger conclusion will summarise the reasons for your judgement that you have already explained in your main paragraphs.
Sustain Your Argument: Build a single line of reasoning throughout. Each point you make should build on the last to support your overall judgement, rather than feeling like separate summaries.
Use Writer Names: To show deeper engagement with the sources, refer to the writers by their names (Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen) rather than "writer 1" and "writer 2".

Candidate 4476

Word Count: ~247 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I strongly agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins. Dr Sarah Jenkins agrees with the idea that the law-making system keeps up with scientific, cultural, and tech changes in the world as we have a flexible uncodified constitution which allows us to adapt to society's changes. Whereas Professor David Chen disagrees with the statement as our law-making system is very slow as it requires a lot of time to pass for a legal law to pass royal assent. Causing the issue to become outdated and neglected. I strongly agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins as we have an uncodified constitution which allows the government to pass laws. For example, an uncodified constitution means that it isn't written down, allowing the government to add past more new effective laws which could help society develop and improve. This is beneficial as it allows the government to adapt quicker and react quicker to the issues in society, just as Dr SJ stated. Another reason why I strongly agree with Dr. SJ is that the government's actions are reviewed over by the High Court (Judicial review), and select committees and parliamentary inquiry. For example, having frequent checks and balances on the government allows ensures that they are actually addressing the issues in society and doing things to support and tackle the issues in society. This is beneficial as it makes sure that the government is moving quicker to tackle the changes in the world. Therefore, I strongly agree with Dr. SJ as having an uncodified constitution and other legal bodies allows the government to adapt to these changes quicker. However, I disagree with Professor David Chen's statement as he believes that the common law relies on unelected judges to update the law through precedents. This is because judicial review only applies to the high courts meaning that the judges are more experienced in their field.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. This is a developing evaluation that fits into Level 2. You have made a clear judgment and supported one side of the argument (Dr. Jenkins) very well using your own knowledge of the uncodified constitution and checks and balances. However, your engagement with Professor Chen's argument is weak. You summarise his point about the slowness of the system but then try to rebut a different point about common law, which confuses your argument. To improve, you must directly compare the two arguments you identified at the start.

Direct Comparison & Rebuttal: "However, while Professor Chen is right that the formal process of passing a law can be slow, this overlooks the flexibility that Dr. Jenkins highlights. For example, the uncodified constitution allows for rapid changes through secondary legislation or conventions, which can respond to societal shifts much faster than a full Act of Parliament. This speed and flexibility arguably outweigh the slowness of the formal process that Professor Chen focuses on."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the beginning ("I strongly agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins") and maintain this position throughout your argument.
Good Use of Own Knowledge: You effectively used your knowledge of judicial review, select committees, and parliamentary inquiries to build a strong case in support of Dr. Jenkins's argument.

Targets

Directly Compare Arguments: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to directly compare their points. Use phrases like, "While Chen argues the system is slow, Jenkins's point about flexibility shows how this can be overcome..."
Sustain the Argument: Your final paragraph introduces a new, confusing point about common law. Stick to the core arguments you identified at the start (speed/flexibility vs. slowness of passing Acts) and build your evaluation around them.
Refine Understanding of Key Terms: An "uncodified constitution" doesn't mean nothing is written down; it means the rules are found in multiple sources (like Acts of Parliament, common law, conventions) rather than a single document. Being precise adds weight to your argument.
Improve Sentence Structure: Some sentences are a little awkward, for example, "the government's actions are reviewed over by the High Court". Re-reading your work aloud can help you spot and fix these. Try: "the government's actions are reviewed by the High Court...".

Candidate 4481

Word Count: ~70 words

Evaluation Score: 3/12

I aggre with writer Dr Savan because They belive The uncodified constitution means parliment can pass new laws realativly quickly when urgent issues aries I aggre with is because a uncodified constitution is not writen down so it is very easily to adjust it at anything anytime to keep with the science. I also aggree with david because to make laws it takes a From months even years to be finalised

Quality of EvaluationLimited. Your answer shows you have understood and selected a point from each writer, which is the first step. However, to evaluate, you must compare the arguments and decide which one is more persuasive. By agreeing with both, you have presented a list of points rather than a developed argument. This, along with the simple explanation, places your response in Level 1.

Comparative Judgement: "Although Professor Chen makes a valid point that codifying the constitution takes a long time, Dr. Jenkins' argument is more convincing because the flexibility to respond to urgent issues, such as a pandemic, is a more significant advantage in a modern society."

Strengths

Identifies Key Arguments: You successfully picked out a relevant argument from each of the two writers (Dr. Jenkins and Prof. Chen).
Attempts Own Explanation: You tried to explain *why* an uncodified constitution is flexible in your own words, showing you understand the basic concept.

Targets

Make a Clear Judgement: Instead of agreeing with both writers, choose one who you find *more* convincing and state this clearly at the start. For example: "Dr. Jenkins provides the more convincing argument because..."
Use Comparative Language: Directly compare the two arguments. Use phrases like "On the other hand...", "However...", or "While Writer B's point is valid, Writer A's is stronger because..." to build a sustained line of reasoning.
Develop Your Explanation (P.E.E.L): For each point you make (Point), provide Evidence from the source, Explain it in more detail, and Link it back to the question. Why is it important for Parliament to pass laws quickly? Give an example.
Proofread for Accuracy: Read your work carefully to correct spelling (e.g., 'agree', 'Parliament', 'believe', 'relatively') and grammar. This makes your arguments clearer and more persuasive.

Candidate 4502

Word Count: ~141 words

Evaluation Score: 4/12

I Mostly agree with writer Dr Skarlah Jenkin due to her points on how People express themselfs on the Culture and Society. They also suggest the ensure they stay relevant to reflect on Social values. When I agree with strongly with out because without Social- People cent live life and enjoy ourselfs. However I disagree with the argument given by writer David chen. They suggest that the law system is dangerously slow and ill-equipped to keep pace with Modern Scientific and Socien advancement. They also suggest that law making is a slow process and whatever law is trying to get-constituent is always changing. Overall I agree more with writer Sarhe Jenkin because she explain our as law as a law is being made and is fair for everyone

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgement and identified some relevant points from both sources to support it. This shows you have understood the arguments. However, your explanation is simple and you describe each writer's view separately rather than directly comparing them. To reach the higher levels, you need to explain *why* one argument is more convincing than the other, creating a sustained line of reasoning.

Developing a Judgment: "Overall, while Chen's point about the law being slow is valid, Jenkins' argument is more convincing. She highlights that law must reflect society's values, which is a more fundamental purpose than just keeping pace with technology. A fair law that people believe in is more important than a fast one."

Strengths

Clear Structure: You have structured your answer logically, dealing with Writer A first, then Writer B, before giving your overall judgment. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Identifies Key Arguments: You have successfully identified the main arguments from both writers, showing you have understood the sources. For example, you correctly noted Chen's point about the law being 'dangerously slow'.

Targets

Develop Your Judgment: Your conclusion is a simple statement. To improve, explain *why* Jenkins' argument is stronger. Do you think reflecting social values is more important than speed? Why? Use phrases like 'This is more convincing because...'.
Directly Compare the Writers: Instead of just describing each writer's view separately, compare them directly. For example, you could say, 'While Chen focuses on the speed of law-making, Jenkins focuses on its purpose. I find Jenkins' view more persuasive because...'.
Use P.E.E.L Structure: Try to use the Point, Evidence, Explain, Link structure. Make a point (e.g., 'Jenkins' argument is strong'), find evidence from the source ('She states that laws must reflect social values'), and then explain in your own words why this makes her convincing.
Proofread for Clarity: There are several spelling and grammar errors (e.g., 'themselfs', 'Socien', 'cent') that make your points less clear. Always take a moment to read through your work to correct these before finishing.

Candidate 4508

Word Count: ~60 words

Evaluation Score: 2/12

I ag rere with Source A it is be cause they meny system is furthermore by the government in individual taxes autonomy some it exclaims what Parliament are for having birendum in some periodic and the governor a mong where no rebelling in serious cases I don't agree with both in retaliay tradit won of law in our cases

Quality of EvaluationBeginning. This response makes a simple judgement, which is the first step in an evaluation question. However, the reasoning is very unclear due to significant errors in spelling and grammar, making it difficult to understand the points being made. The answer needs to clearly explain specific arguments from both sources and then compare them to support a single, consistent judgement to move beyond Level 1.

Developing a Point: Instead of "it is be cause they meny system is furthermore by the government...", try to structure your point like this: "For example, I find Dr. Jenkins more convincing because she argues that... This is a strong point because..."

Strengths

Starts with a Judgement: You begin by stating which writer you agree with. This is the correct way to start an evaluation answer.
Attempts to Use Evidence: You have tried to refer to ideas from Source A to support your point of view, which is a key skill.

Targets

Clarity and SPaG: Focus on writing clear, simple sentences. Proofread your work carefully to correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPaG) so your ideas are easy to understand.
Explain, Don't Just Mention: Instead of listing keywords, pick one specific argument from Dr. Jenkins (Source A) and one from Professor Chen (Source B). Explain each argument in your own words.
Make a Consistent Judgement: Decide which writer is *more* convincing and stick with that decision. Avoid contradicting yourself (e.g., saying you agree with A, then saying you don't agree with either).
Compare the Arguments: Directly compare the two arguments you have explained. Use comparison words like "however," "on the other hand," or "more convincing because..." to show why one argument is stronger than the other.

Candidate 4564

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

Partially I agree with Dr Sarah Jenkins because an uncodified constitution means it is not written and therefore the country can adapt to new circumstances as it is easier to change and therefore able to keep up with new scientific changes to the world. For example, in both the USA and the UK laws were able to make a short changes easier so there was no restrictions regarding the constitution. Therefore the system is able to keep up with new circumstances and adapt. On the other hand, the legislative process is very long too. For example, the ideas start as green papers, then white paper, first reading, second reading, committee stage, third reading, House of Parliament where the bill is looked at and checked and they can make adjustments and send it back to the House of Commons, it's read a 3 times before it finally needs to be accepted by the monarch, Royal Assent. To summarise these steps are long, take the bill will not get the situation just as it may take months or even years to pass. Therefore the UK system of laws making is very ineffective and inefficient when trying to adapt to new changes. In conclusion, although sometimes laws may take years to pass, an uncodified constitution means it the government can adapt to new challenges and issues.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have a good structure and a clear line of argument, stating which writer you agree with. Your knowledge of the legislative process is a clear strength. However, your evaluation is not yet sustained. You describe each writer's view separately rather than directly comparing them to judge which is more convincing. A significant factual error about the US constitution also weakened your argument for Dr. Jenkins. To improve, focus on explicitly using the writers' names and directly weighing their arguments against one another.

Direct Comparison: "In conclusion, while Professor Chen is correct that the legislative process can be slow, Dr. Jenkins' argument is ultimately more convincing. The fundamental flexibility of an uncodified constitution allows for significant adaptation to major new challenges, which is a more important factor than the procedural speed of individual laws."

Strengths

Clear Structure: Your answer is well-organised into an introduction, a paragraph for each side of the argument, and a conclusion. This makes it easy to follow.
Strong Subject Knowledge: You demonstrated excellent, detailed knowledge of the stages a bill passes through in the UK Parliament, from Green Paper to Royal Assent.
Makes a Judgement: You clearly state which writer you find more convincing at the start and end of your response, which is crucial for an evaluation question.

Targets

Directly Compare Writers: Instead of just describing each view, compare them head-to-head. Use phrases like "Jenkins' view is stronger because..." or "While Chen makes a valid point, Jenkins' argument is more significant because...".
Use the Sources Explicitly: Refer to Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen by name throughout your answer. This proves you are evaluating their specific arguments, not just writing generally about the topic.
Ensure Factual Accuracy: Be careful with your supporting examples. The incorrect reference to the USA's constitution as 'easy to change' undermined your point. Always double-check your facts.
Develop Your Conclusion: Your conclusion should briefly weigh up both sides and explain *why* you find one more convincing. Don't just restate your opinion; justify it based on the arguments.

Candidate 4575

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 7/12

I Partially agree with the doctor because an uncodified constitution allows changes and removed with the laws of the country On one hand, some people may agree with the doctor as our system is effective at adapting to society and this is because of the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. Our uncodified constitution is flexible because laws can be added and removed as it is not written down on a single document. Furthermore, judges can interpret and apply laws based on cases which revolve around modern issues in society. This shows that our constitution is easily able to adapt to society through the flexibility of it and judges being able to apply situations from society into cases. On the other hand, some people may disagree alongside the professor because our law making is very slow and not very equipped to keep pace with society. For example, it took years for upskirting laws to be made after many incidents being understood or ignored. Furthermore, laws are made after serious cases such as Rager upskirting which means our legal system does not catch out on these issues before it becomes major and public. This shows that our law making system leaves society vulnerable until major cases are done and brought to their knowledge. In conclusion, I agree with the doctor as issues can be fixed and adapted through multiple different ways in our flexible uncodified constitution.

Quality of EvaluationClear. Your response provides a clear judgment and explains relevant arguments from both writers. You have structured your answer well, dedicating a paragraph to each perspective and using a specific example (upskirting) to support the professor's view. However, to reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two arguments. Instead of just stating one side and then the other, try to weigh them against each other to show *why* one is more convincing than the other. This creates a sustained line of reasoning.

Direct Comparison: "While Professor Chen's point about the slow pace of law-making, such as the upskirting law, is a significant weakness, Dr. Jenkins' argument about overall flexibility is more convincing because it addresses the long-term adaptability of the entire system, not just isolated legislative delays."

Strengths

Well-Structured Paragraphs: You have used a clear structure for your paragraphs, introducing the point, providing evidence from the source, and then explaining it. This makes your argument easy to follow.
Effective Use of Evidence: You successfully identified key arguments from both Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen. Your use of the specific "upskirting" example was particularly effective in supporting the professor's view.
Clear Judgement: Your position is clear throughout the answer. You state who you agree with in the introduction and reaffirm this in the conclusion, linking it back to your main reason.

Targets

Develop Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer in separate blocks, try to directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like "While the professor's point is valid, the doctor's argument is more compelling because..." to create a more evaluative tone.
Use Writer's Names: Refer to the writers by their names (Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen) rather than "the doctor" and "the professor". This is more formal and precise for an exam answer.
Refine Phrasing: Some sentences could be clearer. For example, "allows changes and removed with the laws" could be rephrased as "allows laws to be easily changed or removed." Pay attention to small grammatical details.
Sustain the Argument in Conclusion: To make your conclusion more robust, briefly acknowledge the counter-argument before reaffirming your judgment. For example: "Although Professor Chen raises a valid concern..., Dr. Jenkins' view is ultimately more persuasive because..."

Candidate 4577

Word Count: ~220 words

Evaluation Score: 6/12

I mostly agree with Professor David Chen who disagrees with the statement. This is because the law struggle to keep up, it is very outdated and behind with todays day and age. It is also very ill-equipped. It takes a long time to pass bills, so long that sometimes by the time the law passes the issue has already passed. Adding on to my point the system of law-making is incredibly undemocratic, as judges are not elected. This creates it to be unfair to the people who rely on someone random to pass something that is ment to create peace and help regulate rules, preventing everything to go into chaos. This creates society to be vulnerable just because a judge may not make the right decision. Although, you may be able to agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins who agrees with the statement. This is because they make the points like, that the system reflects modern societal values. This is true as they do update/change the laws to match with today views on with what is right and what is wrong. And Also that judges get to have a lot of experience slowly but surely getting better and creating more quicker and better decisions to create a safe society for today. To summarise my arguments, I mainly agree with Professor David Chen as the system of law-making could be much better and has to adapt with society as time goes on. And For my second point you could agree with Dr. Sarah Jenkins as they are very effective and good (for now). Overall I believe our system of law-making could be better to keep up with scientific, cultural, and social changes in the world.

Quality of EvaluationDeveloping. You have made a clear judgment and supported it by explaining points from both sources. You successfully identify the core arguments about the law being slow versus it being adaptable. To reach the top level, you need to directly compare the two writers' arguments against each other, explaining *why* one is more convincing than the other. Also, be careful to distinguish between the roles of Parliament (who make the laws) and judges (who interpret them).

Direct Comparison: "Although Dr. Jenkins' point that judges gain experience is valid, this does not outweigh Professor Chen's more critical argument that the fundamental process of creating laws in Parliament is too slow to address modern problems effectively."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the start ("I mostly agree with Professor David Chen") and maintain this viewpoint throughout your answer.
Good Source Use: You have successfully selected relevant arguments from both Professor Chen (law is slow/outdated) and Dr. Jenkins (reflects modern values) to build your answer.

Targets

Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to directly compare their arguments. Use phrases like "While Jenkins argues..., Chen's point is more convincing because..." to create a stronger, more analytical line of reasoning.
Differentiate Roles: Be precise about who you are critiquing. Remember, Parliament (made up of elected MPs) *makes* the law, while judges (who are not elected) *interpret* and *apply* the law. Your point about democracy applies more to the House of Lords than to judges.
Develop Your Explanation: Push your analysis further. When you say the system is "outdated," explain *how* a specific slow law-making process (e.g., the multiple stages of a bill) causes real-world problems for society, perhaps using an example.
Refine Terminology: Avoid informal language like "random" or "good (for now)". Use more precise Citizenship terms like 'unelected judiciary', 'legislative process', or 'parliamentary scrutiny' to show your expert understanding.

Candidate 4579

Word Count: ~180 words

Evaluation Score: 5/12

I mostly disagree with writer B the most because law making doesn't take long to be made. Writer B says 'the legislative process is archaic often requiring months or even years for a bill to be passed through the house of Commons and House of Lords. By the time legislation regarding fast moving technologies such as ai or social media it would already be outdated.' Although yes, law making does go through HOC and HOL I believe that it doesn't take so long. However I agree with the argument A because law making does keep up with today. They suggest that 'parliament can pass new laws relatively quickly when urgent issues arrive.' I agree with this because if they don't fix issues they would lose votes and therefore their positions. Overall I agree with writer A because law-passing keeps up with social, cultural and scientific changes.

Quality of EvaluationPromising. You have made a clear judgment and used quotes from both sources to structure your answer, which is a solid foundation for a Level 2 response. However, to reach the higher levels, your evaluation needs more depth. You challenge Professor Chen by stating you disagree, but you don't provide any evidence to support your belief. Your support for Dr. Jenkins is stronger, but could be enhanced with a real-world example. The key missing element is directly comparing the two arguments to show why one is more convincing than the other.

Developing an Argument: "While I disagree with Professor Chen's conclusion, his point about the standard legislative process being slow is valid. However, he overlooks the use of emergency legislation, such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, which was passed in days. This proves Parliament *can* act quickly when necessary and makes Dr. Jenkins' argument more convincing."

Strengths

Clear Judgement: You state your opinion clearly at the beginning and end ("I mostly disagree with writer B...", "Overall I agree with writer A..."), which gives your answer a confident focus.
Use of Sources: You have effectively selected and embedded quotes from both Dr. Jenkins and Professor Chen to build your paragraphs and support your points.

Targets

Evidence-Based Rebuttal: When you disagree with a writer, you must use specific evidence or examples to challenge their point. Simply stating "I believe..." is an assertion, not an evaluation. Think of a law that was passed quickly to counter Professor Chen's argument.
Direct Comparison: Instead of discussing each writer separately, try to compare their arguments directly. Use phrases like "Dr. Jenkins' argument is more convincing than Professor Chen's because..." to create a sustained line of reasoning.
Develop Your Points: Your point about MPs fearing they will lose votes is good citizenship knowledge. To develop it, link it to a specific example where public pressure or an urgent event led to a quick change in the law.
Use Specific Terminology: To improve the academic tone, use terms like 'legislative process', 'scrutiny', and 'expedited'. For example, instead of "law making doesn't take long to be made," you could say "the legislative process can be expedited when necessary."

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📄 Source Passages

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

Professor David Chen says NO

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

Candidate 0283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4383

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4388

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4423

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4443

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4476

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4481

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4502

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4508

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4564

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4575

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4577

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4579

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Extended Writing Feedback

Teacher Access

Dashboard Unlocked

🧑‍🎓 Student Quick Access

📊 Data Export

⚠️ Safeguarding Alerts

Model Answer (Exemplar)

📄 Source Passages

Dr. Sarah Jenkins says YES

Professor David Chen says NO

💡 Own Knowledge You Could Have Used

Overall Class Weaknesses & Models

Teacher Next Steps

Candidate 0283

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4383

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4388

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4423

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4443

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4476

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4481

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4502

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4508

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4564

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4575

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4577

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback

Candidate 4579

🛑 Unlock Your Full Feedback